Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Borg wrote:The anon dickhead from page 1 sounds like every reason that I hate law school. Enjoy being a biglaw "baller" dude, I hope you manage to spend enough time in the office that you never hear the laughter of the people who make just as much or more money free from the constriction of billable hours and mock your obsessive, shitty lifestyle. Also, good luck ever making friends with anybody cool, much less finding someone who isn't totally horrific to marry you. Grades, law review, the school you go to, and Vault are all fucking stupid, and if you can't see that then you really aren't very smart.

tl;dr version: suck it, loser.

Also, this kind of douchebag doesn't really last long in big law anyway. Different kinds of dbags thrive in big law, but the gunner "can't socialize with non-lawyers" kind doesn't last long.

Agreed. Big law is a grind, but my sense is that this kind of attitude grates on the nerves of other lawyers too.

I think an undeveloped variable in this discussion is the sort of emotional compatibility that has nothing to do with lifestyle, interests or backgrounds. The large majority of relationships I see, from two people who have just started dating to many who have been together for years, are simply incompatible. Little things that one says annoy the other. There is jealousy, insecurity, resentment, much of which predated the relationship but gets grafted on to it.

I think that your SO's career plan and interests is an important conversation for logistics, but if you choose someone based on it, you are likely prioritizing the things that contribute the least to longevity. And perhaps the reason that careers and long hours get blamed for failed relationships is because people do not want to admit that there were other, deeper, and more painful reasons.

kwais wrote:I think an undeveloped variable in this discussion is the sort of emotional compatibility that has nothing to do with lifestyle, interests or backgrounds. The large majority of relationships I see, from two people who have just started dating to many who have been together for years, are simply incompatible. Little things that one says annoy the other. There is jealousy, insecurity, resentment, much of which predated the relationship but gets grafted on to it.

I think that your SO's career plan and interests is an important conversation for logistics, but if you choose someone based on it, you are likely prioritizing the things that contribute the least to longevity. And perhaps the reason that careers and long hours get blamed for failed relationships is because people do not want to admit that there were other, deeper, and more painful reasons.

Great points. Also, if you're the type of person who is worried about someone who should love you unconditionally being "jealous" of your high-paying, high-powered job, then maybe you have shitty taste in women and/or maybe you're being a bit paranoid. I was under the impression that, as long as your not a douchebaggy braggart-dickhead, your spouse should be happy that you're extremely successful. Especially if you're required to share your money with her for free.

I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

dresden doll wrote:I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

or IBankers - they tend to have a similar type of experience.Consultants are a maybe - their travel schedule may not mesh

edit: sorry, didn't see this was in the legal employment thread.based on what I read so far, I'm not sure if this should really be in the lounge

Last edited by dingbat on Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dresden doll wrote:I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

or IBankers - they tend to have a similar type of experience.Consultants are a maybe - their travel schedule may not mesh

dresden doll wrote:I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

or IBankers - they tend to have a similar type of experience.Consultants are a maybe - their travel schedule may not mesh

dresden doll wrote:I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

or IBankers - they tend to have a similar type of experience.Consultants are a maybe - their travel schedule may not mesh

dresden doll wrote:I see everyone's having lots of fun with the dooder who thinks marrying a non-lawyer would be more likely to turn into a fail because they're incapable of understanding what Lawl Review is. That's all fun and well, except he has a point in that a fellow lawyer will typically understand (and therefore be less inclined to resent) the constraints and demands that come with the territory in the legal profession much better than a non-lawyer. That's certainly my (and not just my) experience, and, no, I'm not talking about non-lawyers' ability to grasp the nuances of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I think that everyone understands how important it is to have a partner who understands that your hours are harsh, but the way this guy phrased it is what set me off. I'm on law review and I don't care about it or ever want to read another stupid article, and I don't expect anyone else to either. I love my girlfriend because we talk about normal stuff and I don't need to deal with legal crap all the time. I'm going to a bank instead of a firm, but she gets that my hours are going to be insane and it's fine. That guy's attitude is emblematic of the prestige obsessed, poorly considered, misguided way of thinking that seems to drive much of what happens in law school. I just think he's an idiot and wanted to say so.

IAFG wrote:Has someone pointed out that Law Review is totally irrelevant to legal practice? Assuming you're practicing when you meet your SO, how will this ever come up?

I think he was using it as an example of just one kind of esoteric legal thing that he finds annoying to explain to other people. Doesn't want to explain that, doesn't want to explain procedural issues etc. Basically is too much of a self obsessed dick to want to have to deign to talk to any non-lawyers about the oh so important work he will be doing as a first year associate.

IAFG wrote:Has someone pointed out that Law Review is totally irrelevant to legal practice? Assuming you're practicing when you meet your SO, how will this ever come up?

LR doesn't matter at all. Things that matter:

'Why can't you relocate with me? State X has a lawl school too!'

'Well, if OCI doesn't work out, you'll be set anyway because your school's median salary is 160k. What matters is that you get the degree.'

'You haven't picked up kids from daycare AT ALL this whole week. I don't believe you NEED to work all those extra hours ALL the time. You're exaggerating.

'You don't HAVE to go to all those firm events. You just choose to.'

And so on.

Other non-lawyer yet career-minded working professionals would probably get it just fine, but I presume the dude was more talking about the 9 to 5 run of the mill office job crowd that doesn't need to put in insane hours in order to avoid getting dropped in their first year.

yes, other non-law but career-minded people will get it just fine. like I have neither the requisite knowledge nor the capability to do an MD, but I can perfectly relate to an MD/ physician.

i agree. the doctor/lawyer combo is a great one (see The Huxtables)

Yeah, I am "that guy" who used law review as a poorly-chosen example. Of COURSE I don't talk about law review with non-law friends. The point was actually that I don't do this at all, or talk about law school in general, which means I have little to talk about from the past year. In fact, it was a poorly chosen example - which obscured my larger point about hours, which is a valid one. As someone with a SO in law school interested in the same type of career, it is truly nice to be able to talk about shared experiences. I don't think this is a bad thing.

However, I also said "similar careers" would be just as acceptable. Who cares if you can't talk about the latest M&A deal at work? But if you work similar hours and have similar non-law interests, I think lawyer-other non-law working professional can do just fine. As others said, the doctor-lawyer combination is an excellent one. Ditto lawyer-banker.

I stand by my assertion that, as a guy, I would never date anyone who worked significantly fewer hours or made significantly less money than me (significantly more would be a problem for other reasons). Maybe I am just too "modern" for the ultra-conservative legal profession because I don't believe in living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a homemaker wife, and 3 kids. Lord knows my parents more than made up for my plans not to contribute to overpopulation by having 10 kids.

Anonymous User wrote: I stand by my assertion that, as a guy, I would never date anyone who worked significantly fewer hours or made significantly less money than me (significantly more would be a problem for other reasons). Maybe I am just too "modern" for the ultra-conservative legal profession because I don't believe in living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a homemaker wife, and 3 kids. Lord knows my parents more than made up for my plans not to contribute to overpopulation by having 10 kids.

as a girl, i actually agree with this sentiment. totally separate lives like that (one in the workplace 80+ hours a week, while the other busy at home all the time) seems like a recipe for growing apart.

edit: wait, why would MORE be a prob? Maybe i dont agree so much after all. hm

Here's one thing that isn't necessarily apparent to 0L's: in an intellectually-demanding profession, work thoughts tends to crowd out your other thoughts. When you come home, you're still thinking about the brief you have to write, the proposal you were working on, the program you're designing, etc. Some people can compartmentalize very well and push these thoughts out and talk about music or movies or whatever waiter/waitress couples talk about, but unless you're one of these people you'll appreciate an SO who doesn't get mad at you for talking about work.

I'm not married, but found that trying to sustain a relationship with someone with a busy career while I was in law school didn't really work out. We were too busy to really have time for each other and had totally different schedules. I suppose you could say dating someone who kept the same hours as you or another lawyer would work, but personally, I'd prefer someone with a normal 9-5 lifestyle. He'd have to understand why I was busy, but it'd be a lot easier to make time for each other if we both weren't exhausted and stressed all the time.

Anonymous User wrote: I stand by my assertion that, as a guy, I would never date anyone who worked significantly fewer hours or made significantly less money than me (significantly more would be a problem for other reasons). Maybe I am just too "modern" for the ultra-conservative legal profession because I don't believe in living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a homemaker wife, and 3 kids. Lord knows my parents more than made up for my plans not to contribute to overpopulation by having 10 kids.

as a girl, i actually agree with this sentiment. totally separate lives like that (one in the workplace 80+ hours a week, while the other busy at home all the time) seems like a recipe for growing apart.

edit: wait, why would MORE be a prob? Maybe i dont agree so much after all. hm

More would be a problem for many guys (and girls - who wants to date a deadbeat?). For me, it would depend on the circumstances.

30-Something wrote:COULD NOT have done that without my fiance. He and I have been together for 7 years, engaged for 4. We put off the wedding and babies until after school is over and I'm settled in my career. He's the one who did the laundry, fed me, cleaned the house, bought the groceries and basically, kept us from being featured on a very special episode of Hoarders.

We have dogs, not babies. But same here. Husband works full-time while I go to school and he still manages to do the laundry and feed me and take care of the dogs in the morning.

It'll pay off, though. When I have a job, he gets to finish his degree (wants to study astrophysics, ugh) and hopefully I can return the favor. Or at least fund his education.

Anonymous User wrote: I stand by my assertion that, as a guy, I would never date anyone who worked significantly fewer hours or made significantly less money than me (significantly more would be a problem for other reasons). Maybe I am just too "modern" for the ultra-conservative legal profession because I don't believe in living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a homemaker wife, and 3 kids. Lord knows my parents more than made up for my plans not to contribute to overpopulation by having 10 kids.

as a girl, i actually agree with this sentiment. totally separate lives like that (one in the workplace 80+ hours a week, while the other busy at home all the time) seems like a recipe for growing apart.

edit: wait, why would MORE be a prob? Maybe i dont agree so much after all. hm

Man, I wonder if some of you have been married. If work is the only thing preventing you from growing apart you have more serious issues to work on.

Prior to law schol, I worked in the same demanding field as my spouse. I found the last thing I wanted to do at home was talk about work after putting in 65 hour weeks at work.

FWIW, most partners at both of my firms (junior or senior, female or male) seem to be married to spouses in less demanding roles.

Anonymous User wrote: I stand by my assertion that, as a guy, I would never date anyone who worked significantly fewer hours or made significantly less money than me (significantly more would be a problem for other reasons). Maybe I am just too "modern" for the ultra-conservative legal profession because I don't believe in living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a homemaker wife, and 3 kids. Lord knows my parents more than made up for my plans not to contribute to overpopulation by having 10 kids.

as a girl, i actually agree with this sentiment. totally separate lives like that (one in the workplace 80+ hours a week, while the other busy at home all the time) seems like a recipe for growing apart.

edit: wait, why would MORE be a prob? Maybe i dont agree so much after all. hm

More would be a problem for many guys (and girls - who wants to date a deadbeat?). For me, it would depend on the circumstances.

as a girl who will probably do biglaw, if i limit my choices to only those guys who will make more money than me then i'm severely narrowing the pool. just because someone makes less than $160k/yr starting does not mean they're a deadbeat